It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

InfoWars Banned from Facebook and iTunes

page: 9
54
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 6 2018 @ 10:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: interupt42
a reply to: Krazysh0t
See my post above. he has an outlet for NOW, but with net neutrality they can cut off his access legally at anytime.

So why aren't you calling out Ajit Pai and the Trump administration for getting rid of it but instead blaming companies like Apple (who defended net neutrality) for it going away?


Perhaps you don't understand Machiavellian tactics? Again this is something that is not done overnight and nobody is saying its going to lead to a dystopian society. It will lead to the manipulation of the people without them even knowing it.

I understand how slippery slopes work. I just don't agree with you that this is one of them.


So you supported and are for the Republicans and their anti neutrality bill I suppose?

Um... That is a totally different can of worms than what we are talking about, but for the record no I didn't.




posted on Aug, 6 2018 @ 10:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: dothedew
a reply to: introvert

Well, the hatred, race-baiting, nonsensical rants, name-calling, conspiracy theory touting, violence inciting, BS is about equal for the three.

I will concede, however, that TO98 and OD have never once claimed that chemicals in the water are turning the frogs gay.

So I'll give them that.


That is your opinion.



posted on Aug, 6 2018 @ 10:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: Saiker
a reply to: SailorJerry

At what point does a private company become a monopoly over the majority of free speech.


That is a very good question


Not only is that a very good question, it may be the prime question of this new age.

Free speech and all the rest of those rights have been turned over to the dictates of corporate profit. If the speech, true or not, supports that profit then it is allowed, if it threatens that profit then toodle loo.

Free enterprise will only be allowed when it is orchestrated by the big corporations, start ups that can be bought out and used as income for the corps will be bought and used those that threaten them will be bought up and shelved or closed down. Free speech is a victim of the worlds power structure and that structure now only has the facade of government to hid its face from the people .

Yes, companies have the right to do what they want to us. But who has let them get this far. We have given up that power to regulate corporations because they whined that those regulations would stymie gdp and their ability to create jobs and pay decent wages. We trusted our government leaders who told us to give them free reign because it was good for America and now they control everything.

So AJ is not the first and he won't be the last unless the rest of us tow that line that is set by corporations, that line being ''don't ferka with our bottom line. ''



posted on Aug, 6 2018 @ 10:19 AM
link   
If a person comes into my place of business, ranting BS, and fomenting hatred among my customers.

There will be censorship along with perhaps a bloody nose.

You can call it censorship, or dog poop, it's my business, I pay the f+++in bills, insurance, permits to do business, everything.
It's hard enough to build a customer base with out some fool trying to wreck it.

Act nice or GTFO.




edit on 6-8-2018 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2018 @ 10:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: interupt42

Your argument fails the smell test. Apple is pro-net neutrality

Also, so are Amazon, Facebook, Google, Netflix and Twitter.



And who said they weren't publicly?

Do you not see a benefit for them to repeal net neutrality if they are CURRENTLY the big dogs? This gives them the opportunity to squash any new upcoming competitors if they have a back room deal setup with the telecom industry. Last time they were not remotely as vocal as before fighting for net neutrality measures.



posted on Aug, 6 2018 @ 10:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Censorship is the tool of cowards and tyrants.


Is this censorship though? He still has his website.

Freedom of speech is protected by laws, not society. Look at John Schnatter and Papa John's. Look at Kathy Griffin.

That said, If these tech companies continue and go after softer targets, they'll just lose business due to lack of variety.


Yes, it is censorship.

Does he still have his site? Sure.

But he is being punished by organizations for his words.



Do you call it censorship any time ATS banns a member?

Because its pretty much the exact same thing.

I mean I agree its not good, I don't think they should have banned him but its a really interesting question, is this really censorship?


Yes.

It is censorship.

Too many are playing around with the term. It's like calling dog poop a steak. Put it on the grill and it'll still taste like crap.




So what is more important to us:

The personal freedoms of private property rights, or placating to the idiots that do not understand the difference between a steak and a pile of #?




Freedom. Free expression. Anything less is censorship.


Now you may not like the term, but if you are supporting it, might as well embrace it.


People have the freedom to censor others on their private property.

So are you for freedom or not? It appears you pay lip service to freedom, yet whine when people use their freedoms.
edit on 6-8-2018 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2018 @ 10:20 AM
link   
a reply to: SailorJerry

So, no evidence then. Thought as much.

This is the equivalent of blowing a whistle and screaming to the sky. No substance to it. Congrats.



posted on Aug, 6 2018 @ 10:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Yes, it is censorship.


I agree, but only to an academic degree.

Companies like Facebook and Apple will become increasingly fixated on filtering and adjusting what goes over their systems, because they are there to make money and advertisers will not tolerate crap content. It's their commercial interests that drives decisions like this. Using "hate speech" as a reason is a bit lame - why don't they just say that they don't want their brand associated with a twat?

The wider internet ain't censored, unless you're sitting in China or Russia, or a hundred other crappy places.

I really don't understand why people get upset. Do they not understand why companies exist? Apple's not there to do a users bidding, nor is Facebook, nor anyone.
edit on 6/8/2018 by paraphi because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2018 @ 10:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: interupt42

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: interupt42

Your argument fails the smell test. Apple is pro-net neutrality

Also, so are Amazon, Facebook, Google, Netflix and Twitter.



And who said they weren't publicly?

So you are just going to choose to believe otherwise then? Well, good luck with that. I only believe things you can prove. It sounds like you just want to jump to conclusions out of a sense of paranoia.


Do you not see a benefit for them to repeal net neutrality if they are CURRENTLY the big dogs? This gives them the opportunity to squash any new upcoming competitors if they have a back room deal setup with the telecom industry. Last time they were not remotely as vocal as before fighting for net neutrality measures.

Actually, last time they were so vocal that they got the Republicans in Congress to back down from signing a bill to overturn Obama's net neutrality regulations. Every time you say something about net neutrality, it gives me the impression you aren't as clued into the issue as you believe you are. I happen to work in IT and have followed this debate for some time.



posted on Aug, 6 2018 @ 10:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Censorship is the tool of cowards and tyrants.


Is this censorship though? He still has his website.

Freedom of speech is protected by laws, not society. Look at John Schnatter and Papa John's. Look at Kathy Griffin.

That said, If these tech companies continue and go after softer targets, they'll just lose business due to lack of variety.


Yes, it is censorship.

Does he still have his site? Sure.

But he is being punished by organizations for his words.



Do you call it censorship any time ATS banns a member?

Because its pretty much the exact same thing.

I mean I agree its not good, I don't think they should have banned him but its a really interesting question, is this really censorship?


Yes.

It is censorship.

Too many are playing around with the term. It's like calling dog poop a steak. Put it on the grill and it'll still taste like crap.




So what is more important to us:

The personal freedoms of private property rights, or placating to the idiots that do not understand the difference between a steak and a pile of #?




Freedom. Free expression. Anything less is censorship.


Now you may not like the term, but if you are supporting it, might as well embrace it.


People have the freedom to censor others on their private property.

So are you for freedom or not? It appears you pay lip service to freedom, yet whine when people use their freedoms.


It does appear that people have the right to censor.

As evidenced here with this topic.



posted on Aug, 6 2018 @ 10:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t




So why aren't you calling out Ajit Pai and the Trump administration for getting rid of it but instead blaming companies like Apple (who defended net neutrality) for it going away?

I have numerous times and continue to do so. Trump fd up with his pick for the FCC

www.abovetopsecret.com...





Um... That is a totally different can of worms than what we are talking about, but for the record no I didn't.


Ah why is net neutrality sensoring any different than this? They are both performed by private businesses who according to you are well within their right to do so?

So again why are you ok with censoring by private companies with social media but not ok with censoring by private companies with anti net neutrality principles?

Interesting that one is backed by the democrats and the other by the republicans. I wonder if that has anything todo with your stance.



edit on 26831America/ChicagoMon, 06 Aug 2018 10:26:55 -0500000000p3142 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2018 @ 10:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Censorship is the tool of cowards and tyrants.


Is this censorship though? He still has his website.

Freedom of speech is protected by laws, not society. Look at John Schnatter and Papa John's. Look at Kathy Griffin.

That said, If these tech companies continue and go after softer targets, they'll just lose business due to lack of variety.


Yes, it is censorship.

Does he still have his site? Sure.

But he is being punished by organizations for his words.



Do you call it censorship any time ATS banns a member?

Because its pretty much the exact same thing.

I mean I agree its not good, I don't think they should have banned him but its a really interesting question, is this really censorship?


Yes.

It is censorship.

Too many are playing around with the term. It's like calling dog poop a steak. Put it on the grill and it'll still taste like crap.




So what is more important to us:

The personal freedoms of private property rights, or placating to the idiots that do not understand the difference between a steak and a pile of #?




Freedom. Free expression. Anything less is censorship.


Now you may not like the term, but if you are supporting it, might as well embrace it.


People have the freedom to censor others on their private property.

So are you for freedom or not? It appears you pay lip service to freedom, yet whine when people use their freedoms.


It does appear that people have the right to censor.

As evidenced here with this topic.



And that is their right.

That is freedom.

You may not understand it, but you don't have to.



posted on Aug, 6 2018 @ 10:25 AM
link   
I wonder how Alex would react if someone came into his studio, and disrupted his programming.

Think he would just let them rant on HIS show....? I don't



posted on Aug, 6 2018 @ 10:27 AM
link   
a reply to: interupt42

So again why are you ok with censoring by private companies with social media but not ok with censoring with private companies with net neutrality?

Because that is how the Constitution and Bill of Rights was written.



posted on Aug, 6 2018 @ 10:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: SummerRain
a reply to: SailorJerry

So, no evidence then. Thought as much.

This is the equivalent of blowing a whistle and screaming to the sky. No substance to it. Congrats.



Except if you google "Alex Jones hate speech" you'll get pages and pages of videos.

But hey whatever keeps ya as stupid as you wanna be.

We already have an issue in this country w people being spoon fed information w out the ability to actually research for themselves. I refuse to aid that mental problem

Like I said I'm not going to pour truth down the neck of people who have no interest in actually hearing it.

Just don't let me see you on other threads accusing anyone of not being informed when you are actively choosing to stay ignorant

I'll make sure to link this screen shot of you doing it
edit on 6-8-2018 by SailorJerry because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2018 @ 10:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Censorship is the tool of cowards and tyrants.


Is this censorship though? He still has his website.

Freedom of speech is protected by laws, not society. Look at John Schnatter and Papa John's. Look at Kathy Griffin.

That said, If these tech companies continue and go after softer targets, they'll just lose business due to lack of variety.


Yes, it is censorship.

Does he still have his site? Sure.

But he is being punished by organizations for his words.



Do you call it censorship any time ATS banns a member?

Because its pretty much the exact same thing.

I mean I agree its not good, I don't think they should have banned him but its a really interesting question, is this really censorship?


Yes.

It is censorship.

Too many are playing around with the term. It's like calling dog poop a steak. Put it on the grill and it'll still taste like crap.




So what is more important to us:

The personal freedoms of private property rights, or placating to the idiots that do not understand the difference between a steak and a pile of #?




Freedom. Free expression. Anything less is censorship.


Now you may not like the term, but if you are supporting it, might as well embrace it.


People have the freedom to censor others on their private property.

So are you for freedom or not? It appears you pay lip service to freedom, yet whine when people use their freedoms.


It does appear that people have the right to censor.

As evidenced here with this topic.



And that is their right.

That is freedom.

You may not understand it, but you don't have to.


Once the issue of public accommodation is decided in the courts for the internet, we'll have a final answer on this topic.


But for now, censor away!



posted on Aug, 6 2018 @ 10:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: interupt42

So again why are you ok with censoring by private companies with social media but not ok with censoring with private companies with net neutrality?

Because that is how the Constitution and Bill of Rights was written.


What?

They are both censorship by private companies so why are you for one but not the other?

Well besides the blatant obvious that one is supported by the democrats and the other one is not.


edit on 35831America/ChicagoMon, 06 Aug 2018 10:35:40 -0500000000p3142 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2018 @ 10:33 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy



Once the issue of public accommodation is decided in the courts for the internet, we'll have a final answer on this topic.


So you need a court ruling to decide whether or not you believe in private property rights?

By the way, public accommodation is a different argument than setting and enforcing Terms of Use/Service for a private internet entity.



posted on Aug, 6 2018 @ 10:33 AM
link   
Yet no example of "hate speech"?

I mean hundreds of episodes removed full of hate speech but not one link?



posted on Aug, 6 2018 @ 10:34 AM
link   
There was a boy once, and then there was a wolf.



new topics

top topics



 
54
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join